Immunity To Stds?

[duchovny]

After many years of travelling and living in SE Asia, I've had the pleasure of the company of several hundred girls, maybe a thousand, most of them of questionable morals.

I wear protection less than 5% of the time.

Yet, only twice in 2 decades have I had an STD, which was cured with a needle in the ass and some antibiotics. Nor have I caught HIV.

These odds are somewhat contradictory to what we are made to believe should happen.

Is it possible, if you have a healthy immune system, to not have as much of a chance to catch these diseases?

I seem to be living proof.

[robbiecia]

I think you are playing russian roulette matey

[Ijustwannateach]

Moved to Health Forum. I should remind our posters that there are penalties for irresponsibly posting HIV myths in the Health Forum.

[duchovny]

As far as hiv,how do you know you havent got it,been tested have you

Yes, I was recently tested after a 4 month abstinence of risky behaviour back in the west. I was also tested for other STDs, all negative.

[bonobo]

I agree with the Russian Roulette comment.  BUt I also think there is some validity to the OP's premise.

Some people do seem to be more resistant to various diseases as others.  WHile a young lieutenant in the Philippines, I had three of my men avail themselves of a $1 interlude with a street walker.  (This was before HIV, and condom use was not as common). They waited in line for each to take his turn with her, then returned to base. Two of the men began to experience STD symptoms within 8 hours.  THe third man never caught anything.

While I realize that from a medical perspective, HIV is fairly hard to catch, still, with enough unprotected sex, the numbers are against you.  However, I have a friend who was in a long term relationship with a man who died of AIDS, and yet my friend never caught the virus himself.  And Magic Johnson's wife never caught it despite probably two years of intimacy with him while he was infected.  

I think it is very irresponsible for anyone to assume he or she is immune to any disease, much less an STD.  But I don't think it is far-fetched to assume that some people are more resistant to diseases than others.

Edited May 9, 2009 by bonobo

[patklang]

Its very irresponsible to have sex without a condom especialy if going with working girls

I realy cant understand the mentality of some people.

[Cuban]

There is some documentary evidence about sex workers in Kenya that 'appear' to be immune to the local strain of HIV, however whether that offers protection against other strains is doubtful?

Even if you are immune by some devine action, that does not mean that you are not acting as a carrier between 'partners/employees'.

Doing this is stupid - boasting about it on a web site is also stupid.

[patklang]

There is some documentary evidence about sex workers in Kenya that 'appear' to be immune to the local strain of HIV, however whether that offers protection against other strains is doubtful?

Even if you are immune by some devine action, that does not mean that you are not acting as a carrier between 'partners/employees'.

Doing this is stupid - boasting about it on a web site is also stupid.

Totaly agree with your comments as sometimes,if you are immune you can be a carrier and for the poster to go bareback,he must have no thought for the girl,what a waster

[duchovny]

There is some documentary evidence about sex workers in Kenya that 'appear' to be immune to the local strain of HIV, however whether that offers protection against other strains is doubtful?

Even if you are immune by some devine action, that does not mean that you are not acting as a carrier between 'partners/employees'.

Doing this is stupid - boasting about it on a web site is also stupid.

I didn't say I was immune, was just asking the question if it was possible to be more unlikely to contract a disease if your immune system is strong. It seems to be the case with me. I'm not debating the morals of my actions, merely the scientific side of them.

I wasn't bragging about anything.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Sheryl
Flaming comment deleted by Moderator

[mommysboy]

Moved to Health Forum. I should remind our posters that there are penalties for irresponsibly posting HIV myths in the Health Forum.

It's absolutely not possible to have immunity to STDs, not only do they come in all shapes and sizes, ie, virus, bacterial, and fungal, but there are so many variables involved. In fact, I'd say contracting the chlamydia or the clap is a certainty if someone has frequent unprotected sex with multiple partners.

IMHO I would have been more surprised had OP told us he had got HIV by way of heterosexual activity, that being said always wrap up as the female partner could be menstruating, or have syphillis, which seem to be strong cofactors.

We have more and more people on this forum displaying rampant heterosexual activity, but coming out if it lightly, that needs to be discussed, at the least I'd say the dangers are over stressed, or we have a lot of people telling porkies.

For now though safety first and last, particularly given the territory.

[duchovny]

We have more and more people on this forum displaying rampant heterosexual activity, but coming out if it lightly, that needs to be discussed, at the least I'd say the dangers are over stressed, or we have a lot of people telling porkies.

I certainly don't have any reason to come on here and lie about it. I'm just discussing what I do and this topic is very relavent to Thailand as it is a famous destination for sex tourists like myself whether the people on TVisa wish to admit it or not. I'm not interested in peoples moral high ground opinions, save that for your kids. I know many, many men who don't bother wearing protection. In fact I know more who dont wear than who do. And none of them have any problems either. Should we all pretend otherwise?

[Cuban]

And none of them have any problems either. Should we all pretend otherwise?

Some years ago I recall there was some debate about HIV leading to AIDS only were there were other health factors being involved as well, immune system affected by drug or alcohol taking - a combination found in many sex industry locations. Only an idiot would go bareback.

As for cleaning those parts of your body involved in tranfer of bodily fluids, it takes one virus to start an life long relationship with infection as 60% (*) of the world's population know from HSV. Interesting that there's a link to Alzheimer’s disease here, I wonder what other links will be discovered in the years to come?

Hope you don't learn the hard way - but many people consider that "it'll never happen to me" - guess that applies to everyone right?

* not sure of the percentage but most people have it, most common spread with a simple kiss.

HTH

[Daffy D]

If the OP had wanted moral judgments I'm sure he is intelligent enough to have posted on a site that would obliged him. Why do most of the posters here degrade topics into stupidity without actually answering the OP. I'm sure the OP is well aware of his past lifestyle and does not need a bunch of senile moralistic miserable old farts telling he's been morally degenerate. If indeed he has.

Back to the original post. I tend to regard most posts as genuine and take on face value what this poster is asking, not least because I too have wondered about some people being immune to diseases, in this case HIV.

Throughout history when plagues have swept the known world there have always been survivors which does seem to indicate that whatever the deceases there are always some of the population that have the immune gene, otherwise we would all be wiped out. So why shouldn't some have the HIV immune gene?

As already mentioned, there seem to be some "working" ladies in East Africa, where the general opinion is that HIV started, that are immune to HIV and are being studied to find out why they are immune and hope to lead to a cure.

So yes I think some people must be immune to HIV. whether they are carriers is another question but the OP said he has been tested so not only does he seem to have immunity but he is also not a carrier.

Or he has been extremely fortunate.

[PeaceBlondie]

Posting about such activity would draw non-faith-based condemnation everywhere except www.lets.screw.in.the.dirt.bareback.com

[mommysboy]

Or he has been extremely fortunate.

I think this is the 64,000 dollar question.

If you go by conventional health information, then yes indeed.

My opinion, perhaps more fortunate than others, but generally in line with the norm reported on this site, and my own experience. Thais tend to be clean people, and we live in more health conscious times.

Of course it's the real nasties that should concern us, and you only have to get unlucky once. I strongly disagree with the Russian roulette analogy though: the minor nasties aren't killers, and the big one with the little name operates on odds far greater than 6-1 as far as I'm aware. In fact this analogy highlights what's wrong with public health policies in my belief: gross exaggeration.

Still, I shudder to think that people are 'out there' without protection, I mean why chance it? With a little imagination, one can still obtain full pleasure. And you can read one active thread on this forum alone that will convince you of the wisdom of staying safe.

I don't think attacks on the OP are justified, but equally OP needs to calm down a little and understand he's not entitled to a 'free ride' (no pun intended).

[Sheryl]

No, it is not possible to be immune to all STIs.

With any infectious disease there are a number of factors that affect whether or not an exposed person will become ill. These include the degree of infectivity of the diseased person with whom you have contact (which in turn is influenced by a variety of things) and the exposed person’s susceptibility which in turn has is influenced by a number of things, general health of the immune system being one. In the case of STIs in men, whether or not one has been circumcised is another. However none of these “host factors” confer complete protection; the effect is just relative. Persons with impaired immune systems may contact a disease from exposure to even a very low level of pathogen while normal people usually would not, but exposure to a high level of pathogens under the right conditions will infect even the hardiest person.

That the OP has engaged in high risk unprotected sex for several years without thus far contacting an STI is analogous to someone who had engaged in drunk driving for years but so far not had an accident.

Sheer luck – for him and also for all the other poor souls out on the road while he’s driving.

As for the comments about why so many men seem not to get HIV despite risky behavior I will try one more time to explain this.

1. Exposure to pathogens do not result in disease 100% of the time, be it a common cold, the flu, or anything else. Put 5 people in a room with someone with an infectious cold some of them will catch it and some won’t; this does not change the fact that the cold is due to a virus transmitted person to person. Ditto if you have 400 people ion an airplane with someone who has SARS, swine flu, whatever.

2. Obviously, not all casual partners/commercial sex workers are infected. Some of them are, some of them aren’t; luck of the draw and not something you can tell by looking at them. (Nor should statements about having been tested or even display of test results be given credence).

3. Among people with HIV, levels of infectivity vary greatly due to factors such as how high the Viral Load is and whether or not there are any breaks in the skin or mucous membrane (including inside the vagina or rectum where you cannot see it). (Note that this is relative; even a person of low infectivity could still infect you; it’s just a difference in degree of likelihood). These too are not factors you have any way of knowing.

4. Transmission of the HIV virus is more efficient from active to passive partner, that is to say, women are more easily infected by vaginal intercourse than are men, and in male-male anal intercourse, the receptive partner is more easily infected than the active one. HOWEVER, infection of men through heterosexual intercourse and of active male partners in anal intercourse does occur. Statistically more exposures would be needed to before the odds would favor infection than is the case for women/receptive gay male partners, but when infection does occur, it occurs from one exposure, and that exposure could, if you are unlucky, be your very first just as well as it could be your ten thousandth.

This is basic math (probability) but as some people apparently have great trouble grasping it let me give an analogy:

Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with guns with very large chambers of say 500 bullet capacity. Say there are two different gaming rooms where this is being played. In one -- the active male partner room -- all the guns have a single bullet and another 499 chambers empty (just an example -- don't get hung up on the exact number of empty vs loaded chambers please!) . In the other room -- the female or receptive male partner room -- the guns all have 2 bullets and the 498 other chambers are empty.

The odds in both rooms are in favor of not getting shot. But assuming a large number of players, some people will get shot in both rooms. Naturally, more people who play in the second room than in the first room are going to get shot if both rooms have the same number of players.

The more times a person plays, the greater the chance they will get shot. But some unlucky folks will get shot the first time they play, and some lucky ones will play a very large number of times and still not get shot.

And it is the height of foolishness to play such a game at all.

There are millions of HIV infected men in the world today. The vast majorty live in Africa or Asia, where it is primarily a heterosexual disease, and acquired their infection through heterosexual intercourse with an infected woman.

For an excellent description of the HIV situation in Thailand from first known case through to the present see

http://www.avert.org/aidsthai.htm

You will note that about 80% of new cases are heterosexually transmitted. You will also note that the number of infected men exceeds the number of infected women. relating that to the example above, the reason is that there are not an equal number of people playing in each room: the male room has far more players with the result that, despite a lower risk of transmission per exposure, a larger number of male infections occur.

Given that the risks of HIV and importance of using condoms has been abundantly publicized in Thailand, chances are that the almost half a million men in Thailand who got infected from unprotected heterosexual intercourse engaged in many of the same rationalizations that have come out in this thread.

I doubt that any of them take comfort in knowing that the odds were on their side and they were just unlucky. I know for a fact that the TV members who have contacted HIV that way -- and yes, there are some -- don't. Please do not add to their numbers.

[Camelot]

Doesn't circumcision greatly reduce the risk while not eliminating it? I'm not sure if the OP falls into this category.

[mommysboy]

No, it is not possible to be immune to all STIs.

With any infectious disease there are a number of factors that affect whether or not an exposed person will become ill. These include the degree of infectivity of the diseased person with whom you have contact (which in turn is influenced by a variety of things) and the exposed person’s susceptibility which in turn has is influenced by a number of things, general health of the immune system being one. In the case of STIs in men, whether or not one has been circumcised is another. However none of these “host factors” confer complete protection; the effect is just relative. Persons with impaired immune systems may contact a disease from exposure to even a very low level of pathogen while normal people usually would not, but exposure to a high level of pathogens under the right conditions will infect even the hardiest person.

That the OP has engaged in high risk unprotected sex for several years without thus far contacting an STI is analogous to someone who had engaged in drunk driving for years but so far not had an accident.

Sheer luck – for him and also for all the other poor souls out on the road while he’s driving.

As for the comments about why so many men seem not to get HIV despite risky behavior I will try one more time to explain this.

1. Exposure to pathogens do not result in disease 100% of the time, be it a common cold, the flu, or anything else. Put 5 people in a room with someone with an infectious cold some of them will catch it and some won’t; this does not change the fact that the cold is due to a virus transmitted person to person. Ditto if you have 400 people ion an airplane with someone who has SARS, swine flu, whatever.

2. Obviously, not all casual partners/commercial sex workers are infected. Some of them are, some of them aren’t; luck of the draw and not something you can tell by looking at them. (Nor should statements about having been tested or even display of test results be given credence).

3. Among people with HIV, levels of infectivity vary greatly due to factors such as how high the Viral Load is and whether or not there are any breaks in the skin or mucous membrane (including inside the vagina or rectum where you cannot see it). (Note that this is relative; even a person of low infectivity could still infect you; it’s just a difference in degree of likelihood). These too are not factors you have any way of knowing.

4. Transmission of the HIV virus is more efficient from active to passive partner, that is to say, women are more easily infected by vaginal intercourse than are men, and in male-male anal intercourse, the receptive partner is more easily infected than the active one. HOWEVER, infection of men through heterosexual intercourse and of active male partners in anal intercourse does occur. Statistically more exposures would be needed to before the odds would favor infection than is the case for women/receptive gay male partners, but when infection does occur, it occurs from one exposure, and that exposure could, if you are unlucky, be your very first just as well as it could be your ten thousandth.

This is basic math (probability) but as some people apparently have great trouble grasping it let me give an analogy:

Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with guns with very large chambers of say 500 bullet capacity. Say there are two different gaming rooms where this is being played. In one -- the active male partner room -- all the guns have a single bullet and another 499 chambers empty (just an example -- don't get hung up on the exact number of empty vs loaded chambers please!) . In the other room -- the female or receptive male partner room -- the guns all have 2 bullets and the 498 other chambers are empty.

The odds in both rooms are in favor of not getting shot. But assuming a large number of players, some people will get shot in both rooms. Naturally, more people who play in the second room than in the first room are going to get shot if both rooms have the same number of players.

The more times a person plays, the greater the chance they will get shot. But some unlucky folks will get shot the first time they play, and some lucky ones will play a very large number of times and still not get shot.

And it is the height of foolishness to play such a game at all.

There are millions of HIV infected men in the world today. The vast majorty live in Africa or Asia, where it is primarily a heterosexual disease, and acquired their infection through heterosexual intercourse with an infected woman.

For an excellent description of the HIV situation in Thailand from first known case through to the present see

http://www.avert.org/aidsthai.htm

You will note that about 80% of new cases are heterosexually transmitted. You will also note that the number of infected men exceeds the number of infected women. relating that to the example above, the reason is that there are not an equal number of people playing in each room: the male room has far more players with the result that, despite a lower risk of transmission per exposure, a larger number of male infections occur.

Given that the risks of HIV and importance of using condoms has been abundantly publicized in Thailand, chances are that the almost half a million men in Thailand who got infected from unprotected heterosexual intercourse engaged in many of the same rationalizations that have come out in this thread.

I doubt that any of them take comfort in knowing that the odds were on their side and they were just unlucky. I know for a fact that the TV members who have contacted HIV that way -- and yes, there are some -- don't. Please do not add to their numbers.

Sorry Sheryl I doubt your arguments, the reliability of your sources, and your anology is plain silly. I hope looking back through my postings you'll see my postings are open minded and reasonable, and allow this posting to stand.

[bonobo]

No, it is not possible to be immune to all STIs.

With any infectious disease there are a number of factors that affect whether or not an exposed person will become ill. These include the degree of infectivity of the diseased person with whom you have contact (which in turn is influenced by a variety of things) and the exposed person's susceptibility which in turn has is influenced by a number of things, general health of the immune system being one. In the case of STIs in men, whether or not one has been circumcised is another. However none of these "host factors" confer complete protection; the effect is just relative. Persons with impaired immune systems may contact a disease from exposure to even a very low level of pathogen while normal people usually would not, but exposure to a high level of pathogens under the right conditions will infect even the hardiest person.

That the OP has engaged in high risk unprotected sex for several years without thus far contacting an STI is analogous to someone who had engaged in drunk driving for years but so far not had an accident.

Sheer luck – for him and also for all the other poor souls out on the road while he's driving.

As for the comments about why so many men seem not to get HIV despite risky behavior I will try one more time to explain this.

1. Exposure to pathogens do not result in disease 100% of the time, be it a common cold, the flu, or anything else. Put 5 people in a room with someone with an infectious cold some of them will catch it and some won't; this does not change the fact that the cold is due to a virus transmitted person to person. Ditto if you have 400 people ion an airplane with someone who has SARS, swine flu, whatever.

2. Obviously, not all casual partners/commercial sex workers are infected. Some of them are, some of them aren't; luck of the draw and not something you can tell by looking at them. (Nor should statements about having been tested or even display of test results be given credence).

3. Among people with HIV, levels of infectivity vary greatly due to factors such as how high the Viral Load is and whether or not there are any breaks in the skin or mucous membrane (including inside the vagina or rectum where you cannot see it). (Note that this is relative; even a person of low infectivity could still infect you; it's just a difference in degree of likelihood). These too are not factors you have any way of knowing.

4. Transmission of the HIV virus is more efficient from active to passive partner, that is to say, women are more easily infected by vaginal intercourse than are men, and in male-male anal intercourse, the receptive partner is more easily infected than the active one. HOWEVER, infection of men through heterosexual intercourse and of active male partners in anal intercourse does occur. Statistically more exposures would be needed to before the odds would favor infection than is the case for women/receptive gay male partners, but when infection does occur, it occurs from one exposure, and that exposure could, if you are unlucky, be your very first just as well as it could be your ten thousandth.

This is basic math (probability) but as some people apparently have great trouble grasping it let me give an analogy:

Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with guns with very large chambers of say 500 bullet capacity. Say there are two different gaming rooms where this is being played. In one -- the active male partner room -- all the guns have a single bullet and another 499 chambers empty (just an example -- don't get hung up on the exact number of empty vs loaded chambers please!) . In the other room -- the female or receptive male partner room -- the guns all have 2 bullets and the 498 other chambers are empty.

The odds in both rooms are in favor of not getting shot. But assuming a large number of players, some people will get shot in both rooms. Naturally, more people who play in the second room than in the first room are going to get shot if both rooms have the same number of players.

The more times a person plays, the greater the chance they will get shot. But some unlucky folks will get shot the first time they play, and some lucky ones will play a very large number of times and still not get shot.

And it is the height of foolishness to play such a game at all.

There are millions of HIV infected men in the world today. The vast majorty live in Africa or Asia, where it is primarily a heterosexual disease, and acquired their infection through heterosexual intercourse with an infected woman.

For an excellent description of the HIV situation in Thailand from first known case through to the present see

http://www.avert.org/aidsthai.htm

You will note that about 80% of new cases are heterosexually transmitted. You will also note that the number of infected men exceeds the number of infected women. relating that to the example above, the reason is that there are not an equal number of people playing in each room: the male room has far more players with the result that, despite a lower risk of transmission per exposure, a larger number of male infections occur.

Given that the risks of HIV and importance of using condoms has been abundantly publicized in Thailand, chances are that the almost half a million men in Thailand who got infected from unprotected heterosexual intercourse engaged in many of the same rationalizations that have come out in this thread.

I doubt that any of them take comfort in knowing that the odds were on their side and they were just unlucky. I know for a fact that the TV members who have contacted HIV that way -- and yes, there are some -- don't. Please do not add to their numbers.

Sorry Sheryl I doubt your arguments, the reliability of your sources, and your anology is plain silly. I hope looking back through my postings you'll see my postings are open minded and reasonable, and allow this posting to stand.

Actually, I find her analogy quite apt and representative.  I think if puts the situation in terms which brings it all into perspective.

As far as immunity, I highly doubt that people would be immune to all known std's.  The various vectors, pathogens, and strains are far too great for people to reasonably develop immunity to all of them.

But there are too many cases of people not becoming infected when exposed for me to assume that all people catch a specific disease with the same ease.  And I am not talking about sexually transmitted HIV here. Male/female vaginal intercourse just is not that great a vector for HIV, and Sheryl's 500-chamber pistol is actually quite close to the numbers I have read, so it is not surprising that a man can have intercourse with an HIV-infected woman and not contract the virus.

But other vectors are far better means of pathogen transmission.  Even with HIV, I know of a case where some 16 or 17 patients received organs from a donor who had actaully died of an AIDS-related disease.  This happened in Floridadue to a big mix-up, obviously.  Of those people, only fivecontracted the virus.  "Only five" is a huge number if you were one of the five, but you would thin that actually getting an organ containing the virus inside yoru body would result in the recipient also catching the disease.

There is also a man in San Diego who was one of the first Americans to be identified as having the virus.  He has been living for some 25 years now without medical care, doing fine, with no symptoms.  How does he have the virus in his body, but there are no observable deliterious effects?

Anyone who counts on some immunity is ratehr foolish, I think.. Let's take the OP (and I am not goign moral on him here.)  Take his upwards limit of having sex with 1,000 women, and let's say, for the sake of arguement, that all of them were prostitutes.  I have heard reports that 20% of some populations of prostitutes are HIV infected, so let's use that figure.  And let's forget chlamydia, syphlis, and the rest for this.

Only assuming HIV, that means he has had sex with 200 women with HIV.  If the transmission rate is 1 in 500, then it is not surprising that he has not contracted it yet.  And even if you take figures where the transmission rate from female prostitutes to men is twice that of women who are romantically or at least erotically involved with their partner, that is still 1 in 250.

BUt like anything, the more you take your chances, the more likely that the numbers will catch up with you. People play the lottery with huge odds stacked against them and think they might win, yet 1 in 500 is "acceptable odds?"

I do believe it likely that there are people who are either immune to specific pathogens or who have the ability to fight them off.  But I also believe that the vast majority of the population is highly susceptable to most of the more common std's.

[Sheryl]

I find your postings anything but open-minded and reasonable, and also find them extremely uninformed. You do not appear to have a grasp of epidemiology, medical science, the laws of probability etc or to be at all conversant with the abundant data on HIV transmission in various populations.

Believe whatever you like, certainly nothing I or anyone else can say is going to change your mind. in my experience people who refuse to believe in the risk of HIV transmission have reasons unrelated to science for it. Anyhow I am glad to note from your prior posts that you do support condom use, so unlike the OP your behavior does not pose a danger to yourself or others.

[micky44]

hay duchovny, im with you on this one, slept my way around S/A been shall we say a little lacks at times! even beat your quoted figuers!! nothing not even a dribble, get checked up when im back in the UK, nothing at all. As for the people trying to condemm or call my friend irresponsible, he did NOT ask for your outrages comments, read his post and reply to that, why go off on some tangent ,of holyer than though attitude.

[Crushdepth]

Is it possible, if you have a healthy immune system, to not have as much of a chance to catch these diseases?

I seem to be living proof.

1. You have been bloody lucky.

2. You have probably enjoyed lowered risk from the protection used by other people (particularly in Thailand). That is to say, you are an STD bludger and a parasite on society. Wear a condom so you don't spread things around.

Immunity? Well it's possible to have an above average level of resistance to a particular disease just because of your genetic makeup or prior exposure. But to think you enjoy some supernatural immunity to STDs in general is misconceived. Ever had a cold? You're human too.

[mommysboy]

I find your postings anything but open-minded and reasonable, and also find them extremely uninformed. You do not appear to have a grasp of epidemiology, medical science, the laws of probability etc or to be at all conversant with the abundant data on HIV transmission in various populations.

Believe whatever you like, certainly nothing I or anyone else can say is going to change your mind. in my experience people who refuse to believe in the risk of HIV transmission have reasons unrelated to science for it. Anyhow I am glad to note from your prior posts that you do support condom use, so unlike the OP your behavior does not pose a danger to yourself or others.

Yes the use of condoms is mandatory advice IMHO. It’s a wretched ailment that I feel must have some contagious factor, and although happily science has created some drugs it’s still not even worth taking any risk on. There are lots of other nasties too, and we rarely mention hep b., which is much more likely. (but note no farang epidemic on this I think, even though it is more likely !).

• Epidemiology – But I don’t believe the figures outside the west anyway, and hence transmission among various populations will be flawed in my view. I’m not going to argue on terms that I don’t agree with full stop. Even the WHO now accepts the figures need significant downward revision, 6 million I think it was in 2008. Look we can all go off and click on some link or refer to a dodgy website, but that doesn’t make the stats right.
  
• Science. No I don’t understand the science at all. That’s the problem, who does? Do you? Does a GP? Does a brain surgeon? We have to take it on trust, and in this instance I don’t want to yet.
  
• Laws of probability. I know enough to understand that if you put the wrong figures in you are bound to get the wrong figures out. Surely, we should get hung up on the figures, it matters a heck of a lot. I thought too that discrete events, could not be totaled cumulatively, but there again common sense I suppose dictates that the more you are exposed the greater the chance of infection. So math isn’t everything is it, just using the old brainbox a bit can be a more important tool.
  

You shouldn’t so easily dismiss my experience or that of others. Time and again we’ve heard a familiar tale- I won’t rehash it. The OP gets told he’s lucky or has been playing Russian roulette, and when that’s shown to be wrong suddenly the gun gets an extra 496 barrels – sorry, I know you only used this to make a point, me too. That’s the problem with this whole subject area, it disappears in to the realms of fantasy, because the facts are not so firmly rooted in my opinion

But what if OP wasn’t that lucky? After all it’s no more, no less than accepted figures in the west state should happen, isn’t it?

So I think it is valid to ask whether the science is good, in part anyway, and whether those figures in Thailand are not just a tad overstated, remember there was one study that alleged 40% infection rate among freelancers, these things do happen for one reason or another especially it seems in Thailand.

Also if science has got this mapped out how come no cure – it’s a bit puzzling that, so all knowing but can’t even get a photograph of the little blighter active in the bloodstream or conduct a basic sugar density banding test or whatever it’s called, let alone discover a vaccine or a cure?

Now, I’m also open minded enough to see the other side, there may be some definitive answers that make these basic questions unnecessary and great bring them on, but I haven’t heard them yet.

[loong]

................

Back to the original post. I tend to regard most posts as genuine and take on face value what this poster is asking, not least because I too have wondered about some people being immune to diseases, in this case HIV.

Throughout history when plagues have swept the known world there have always been survivors which does seem to indicate that whatever the deceases there are always some of the population that have the immune gene, otherwise we would all be wiped out. So why shouldn't some have the HIV immune gene?

............

So yes I think some people must be immune to HIV. whether they are carriers is another question but the OP said he has been tested so not only does he seem to have immunity but he is also not a carrier.

Or he has been extremely fortunate.

Some years back I saw a program on TV in the UK. It was concerning one of the 2 main plagues (bubonic?) that swept through Europe and the UK - not sure if it was spread by fleas or rats. Sorry my history is not so good.

It seemed that most people died from this plague, yet some were unaffected. This suggests that some people had a natural resistance/immunity to the plague. Because most of the people that remained had this resistance, it was passed to subsequent generations.

Scientists managed to test remains of some of the plague victims and discovered that the plague was in fact very similar to the HIV virus.

It was suggested that it was quite possible that as most Europeans were descendants of people who survived the plague, Europeans could well have inherited some resistance to the HIV virus.

The plague did not reach Africa or SE Asia where HIV is much more prolific than in Europe. So there may be some truth to the theory.

This is only a theory and as usual there are disagreements between scientists

The program was a long time ago, so my memory is a bit sketchy.

OP. Have you had yourself checked for Herpes? A lot of people don't and a lot of people do not know that they are infected. It's more common than you think. 25% of women and 12% of men are infected with genital herpes.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/STDFact-herpes.htm

[Jungian]

If I go on a gambling spree I will be sure to invite you because you have some of the best luck I have ever heard of!

[Dakhar]

No, it is not possible to be immune to all STIs.

With any infectious disease there are a number of factors that affect whether or not an exposed person will become ill. These include the degree of infectivity of the diseased person with whom you have contact (which in turn is influenced by a variety of things) and the exposed person’s susceptibility which in turn has is influenced by a number of things, general health of the immune system being one. In the case of STIs in men, whether or not one has been circumcised is another. However none of these “host factors” confer complete protection; the effect is just relative. Persons with impaired immune systems may contact a disease from exposure to even a very low level of pathogen while normal people usually would not, but exposure to a high level of pathogens under the right conditions will infect even the hardiest person.

That the OP has engaged in high risk unprotected sex for several years without thus far contacting an STI is analogous to someone who had engaged in drunk driving for years but so far not had an accident.

Sheer luck – for him and also for all the other poor souls out on the road while he’s driving.

As for the comments about why so many men seem not to get HIV despite risky behavior I will try one more time to explain this.

1. Exposure to pathogens do not result in disease 100% of the time, be it a common cold, the flu, or anything else. Put 5 people in a room with someone with an infectious cold some of them will catch it and some won’t; this does not change the fact that the cold is due to a virus transmitted person to person. Ditto if you have 400 people ion an airplane with someone who has SARS, swine flu, whatever.

2. Obviously, not all casual partners/commercial sex workers are infected. Some of them are, some of them aren’t; luck of the draw and not something you can tell by looking at them. (Nor should statements about having been tested or even display of test results be given credence).

3. Among people with HIV, levels of infectivity vary greatly due to factors such as how high the Viral Load is and whether or not there are any breaks in the skin or mucous membrane (including inside the vagina or rectum where you cannot see it). (Note that this is relative; even a person of low infectivity could still infect you; it’s just a difference in degree of likelihood). These too are not factors you have any way of knowing.

4. Transmission of the HIV virus is more efficient from active to passive partner, that is to say, women are more easily infected by vaginal intercourse than are men, and in male-male anal intercourse, the receptive partner is more easily infected than the active one. HOWEVER, infection of men through heterosexual intercourse and of active male partners in anal intercourse does occur. Statistically more exposures would be needed to before the odds would favor infection than is the case for women/receptive gay male partners, but when infection does occur, it occurs from one exposure, and that exposure could, if you are unlucky, be your very first just as well as it could be your ten thousandth.

This is basic math (probability) but as some people apparently have great trouble grasping it let me give an analogy:

Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with guns with very large chambers of say 500 bullet capacity. Say there are two different gaming rooms where this is being played. In one -- the active male partner room -- all the guns have a single bullet and another 499 chambers empty (just an example -- don't get hung up on the exact number of empty vs loaded chambers please!) . In the other room -- the female or receptive male partner room -- the guns all have 2 bullets and the 498 other chambers are empty.

The odds in both rooms are in favor of not getting shot. But assuming a large number of players, some people will get shot in both rooms. Naturally, more people who play in the second room than in the first room are going to get shot if both rooms have the same number of players.

The more times a person plays, the greater the chance they will get shot. But some unlucky folks will get shot the first time they play, and some lucky ones will play a very large number of times and still not get shot.

And it is the height of foolishness to play such a game at all.

There are millions of HIV infected men in the world today. The vast majorty live in Africa or Asia, where it is primarily a heterosexual disease, and acquired their infection through heterosexual intercourse with an infected woman.

For an excellent description of the HIV situation in Thailand from first known case through to the present see

http://www.avert.org/aidsthai.htm

You will note that about 80% of new cases are heterosexually transmitted. You will also note that the number of infected men exceeds the number of infected women. relating that to the example above, the reason is that there are not an equal number of people playing in each room: the male room has far more players with the result that, despite a lower risk of transmission per exposure, a larger number of male infections occur.

Given that the risks of HIV and importance of using condoms has been abundantly publicized in Thailand, chances are that the almost half a million men in Thailand who got infected from unprotected heterosexual intercourse engaged in many of the same rationalizations that have come out in this thread.

I doubt that any of them take comfort in knowing that the odds were on their side and they were just unlucky. I know for a fact that the TV members who have contacted HIV that way -- and yes, there are some -- don't. Please do not add to their numbers.

Sorry Sheryl I doubt your arguments, the reliability of your sources, and your anology is plain silly. I hope looking back through my postings you'll see my postings are open minded and reasonable, and allow this posting to stand.

No opoligies needed or required for the literate.... thank you Sheryl for that well written post.

[Dakhar]

After many years of travelling and living in SE Asia, I've had the pleasure of the company of several hundred girls, maybe a thousand, most of them of questionable morals.

I wear protection less than 5% of the time.

Yet, only twice in 2 decades have I had an STD, which was cured with a needle in the ass and some antibiotics. Nor have I caught HIV.

These odds are somewhat contradictory to what we are made to believe should happen.

Is it possible, if you have a healthy immune system, to not have as much of a chance to catch these diseases?

I seem to be living proof.

I promise you, you have HPV at the least that much is for sure.

[tomartoh]

My mother, bless her soul, was full of warnings to me as a youngster. About girl friends, she told me to be careful of 'dirty women'. I have tried my best to take note of her advice.

Now I am reaching more advanced years, I also thank her for her enlightenment on circumcised, which makes contracting some std's more difficult

Maybe an old wives tale , but lead to believe that having a pee after sex also cut down risks of std's

There are many guys like the OP who never use condoms and never contracted anything and as a result there are also many guys reach middle/old age and feel invulnerable as a result.

[mommysboy]

No, it is not possible to be immune to all STIs.

With any infectious disease there are a number of factors that affect whether or not an exposed person will become ill. These include the degree of infectivity of the diseased person with whom you have contact (which in turn is influenced by a variety of things) and the exposed person's susceptibility which in turn has is influenced by a number of things, general health of the immune system being one. In the case of STIs in men, whether or not one has been circumcised is another. However none of these "host factors" confer complete protection; the effect is just relative. Persons with impaired immune systems may contact a disease from exposure to even a very low level of pathogen while normal people usually would not, but exposure to a high level of pathogens under the right conditions will infect even the hardiest person.

That the OP has engaged in high risk unprotected sex for several years without thus far contacting an STI is analogous to someone who had engaged in drunk driving for years but so far not had an accident.

Sheer luck – for him and also for all the other poor souls out on the road while he's driving.

As for the comments about why so many men seem not to get HIV despite risky behavior I will try one more time to explain this.

1. Exposure to pathogens do not result in disease 100% of the time, be it a common cold, the flu, or anything else. Put 5 people in a room with someone with an infectious cold some of them will catch it and some won't; this does not change the fact that the cold is due to a virus transmitted person to person. Ditto if you have 400 people ion an airplane with someone who has SARS, swine flu, whatever.

2. Obviously, not all casual partners/commercial sex workers are infected. Some of them are, some of them aren't; luck of the draw and not something you can tell by looking at them. (Nor should statements about having been tested or even display of test results be given credence).

3. Among people with HIV, levels of infectivity vary greatly due to factors such as how high the Viral Load is and whether or not there are any breaks in the skin or mucous membrane (including inside the vagina or rectum where you cannot see it). (Note that this is relative; even a person of low infectivity could still infect you; it's just a difference in degree of likelihood). These too are not factors you have any way of knowing.

4. Transmission of the HIV virus is more efficient from active to passive partner, that is to say, women are more easily infected by vaginal intercourse than are men, and in male-male anal intercourse, the receptive partner is more easily infected than the active one. HOWEVER, infection of men through heterosexual intercourse and of active male partners in anal intercourse does occur. Statistically more exposures would be needed to before the odds would favor infection than is the case for women/receptive gay male partners, but when infection does occur, it occurs from one exposure, and that exposure could, if you are unlucky, be your very first just as well as it could be your ten thousandth.

This is basic math (probability) but as some people apparently have great trouble grasping it let me give an analogy:

Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with guns with very large chambers of say 500 bullet capacity. Say there are two different gaming rooms where this is being played. In one -- the active male partner room -- all the guns have a single bullet and another 499 chambers empty (just an example -- don't get hung up on the exact number of empty vs loaded chambers please!) . In the other room -- the female or receptive male partner room -- the guns all have 2 bullets and the 498 other chambers are empty.

The odds in both rooms are in favor of not getting shot. But assuming a large number of players, some people will get shot in both rooms. Naturally, more people who play in the second room than in the first room are going to get shot if both rooms have the same number of players.

The more times a person plays, the greater the chance they will get shot. But some unlucky folks will get shot the first time they play, and some lucky ones will play a very large number of times and still not get shot.

And it is the height of foolishness to play such a game at all.

There are millions of HIV infected men in the world today. The vast majorty live in Africa or Asia, where it is primarily a heterosexual disease, and acquired their infection through heterosexual intercourse with an infected woman.

For an excellent description of the HIV situation in Thailand from first known case through to the present see

http://www.avert.org/aidsthai.htm

You will note that about 80% of new cases are heterosexually transmitted. You will also note that the number of infected men exceeds the number of infected women. relating that to the example above, the reason is that there are not an equal number of people playing in each room: the male room has far more players with the result that, despite a lower risk of transmission per exposure, a larger number of male infections occur.

Given that the risks of HIV and importance of using condoms has been abundantly publicized in Thailand, chances are that the almost half a million men in Thailand who got infected from unprotected heterosexual intercourse engaged in many of the same rationalizations that have come out in this thread.

I doubt that any of them take comfort in knowing that the odds were on their side and they were just unlucky. I know for a fact that the TV members who have contacted HIV that way -- and yes, there are some -- don't. Please do not add to their numbers.

Sorry Sheryl I doubt your arguments, the reliability of your sources, and your anology is plain silly. I hope looking back through my postings you'll see my postings are open minded and reasonable, and allow this posting to stand.

No opoligies needed or required for the literate.... thank you Sheryl for that well written post.

Oh dear! I think it's called shooting yourself in the foot!!! Presumably then you'll be one of the one's who does need a sorry . We all do it though, take my 'anology'.

But come on then what's your take ? - hopefully in more than one sentence!

[mommysboy]

Generally, I hate links and references to studies as there are so many out there that can be used to prove any point that you want to make, but here’s 2 cast iron studies by the medical establishment and reported on reputable websites and established medical journals. These are one’s that might be regarded as being kind to the establishment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028613?dopt=AbstractPlus

There were no sero-conversions during the study with condom use, but surprisingly low transmission without too, I think!?. The authors themselves conclude that hiv transmission varies wildly.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9270414?dopt=Abstract

Not one of the sero discordant couples over a 10 year period converted, ie, none of the males sleeping with an hiv+ woman became hiv+, although this was partly because of a disqualification of one couple as the female had a predilicition for sex with her husband shortly after being inseminated by other males not in the study. There was also significant behavioural change, eg, couples started using condoms (but not all). The authors concluded transmission was low, but subsequently retracted much of the findings as they considered their work to have been subverted by AIDS dissidents. Nevertheless the figures are there, last time I checked the transmission risk was rather low to say the least. The paper is seen as a seminal work in proving that condom use greatly prevents HIV transmission.

Knowing what I know I’d still feel very uncomfortable about sleeping unprotected with a women of unknown hiv status, since the figures are inconclusive, but I am not surprised that OP didn’t acquire HIV.

One nasty sting in the tail though, virus do not work according to charts, quite often one individual can prove to be highly infectious, suddenly a risk factor of 10,000 -1 (this is in line with reputable studies) could easily drop to 10-1 or less. People involved in group activities where bodily fluids might be exchanged by numerous individuals also seem to run the gauntlet too, the example might be gay bath houses of the 80's.

I am surprised OP avoided one or more of the following: HPV, Syph, herpes, and perhaps Hep B. And of course he did acquire at least 2 infections. My only take here is that he was either lucky, or that risks have once again be overstated by the establishment.

My brushes with STD’s included 1 dose of NSU, and even this minor event caused me distress. I also was thought to be at high risk of HIV and the subsequent months were a real trauma.

It was only after discovering that there were a lot of other me’s out there that I started to question aspects of HIV wisdom.